When Belize signed onto the 350 million US dollar Blue Bond, it agreed to certain undertakings. That included an update to the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations BEFORE it considers any new development projects within the Belize Barrier Reef System.
But, that commitment seems to have been forgotten as government is right back at it. Without any change in EIA regs, The Department of the Environment is considering EIA #2 from the Waterloo Project at the Port of Belize. That's the one that seeks to construct a cruise tourism berthing dock as part of a package deal with the upgrade of the port's bulk cargo facility.
And that's why a Coalition of Conservation Groups have written the Prime Minister a strongly worded letter. Dated yesterday, it, quote, "formally request(s) that the Government…pause all Environmental Impact Assessments currently in process...until the associated and relevant environmental regulations and laws are appropriately amended and fully realized."
Today, we spoke via Zoom to Janelle Chanona from OCEANA about why they felt the need to pull the PM's shirt. She said they have two main concerns:
Janelle Chanona, Vice President, Oceana Belize
"We have overarching concerns; one, is that either by design or inadvertently we end up in a situation where the commitments bound to government and its agencies in the agreement are somehow undermined and puts us in a precarious position legally, but, two, just the principle of it. We know that the EIA regs have needed to be amended, updated. For some time now there are parts of the law that are silent on critical issues. There are parts of the law that need to be clarified and we've gotten to this point after some time has been allowed and we are not seeing those changes. So, we underscore that in the midst of all the current plans that are also in process; the tourism master plan, the courts plan, the blue economy police and development strategy - all of these important documents that speaks to holistic planning. Why would we proceed and then realize oh wow we should have done this here and that would have work better there. To us it just makes sense to let's put everything on pause, figure out what we are doing where and then proceed from that informed position."
Jules Vasquez
"There is supposed to be a public consultation on September 1, I believe for this Waterloo project. If I understand the first paragraph of the letter, its asking that that be put on pause."
Janelle Chanona, Vice President, Oceana Belize
"Because I think it is not helpful to have two streams happening, a review of everything and get these plans going and decision making happening in other quarters, because then you get to a point where it's like you had me believing that I had a chance and then all of a sudden you come and say well this plan say no, so I can't do it and then you end up with disappointment and frustration perhaps on both ends."
And some public frustration has been caused with the submission of the second EIA for Waterloo when the first one had been rejected. The letter notes, "there are no guidelines or limits for repackaging and resubmitting rejected projects. By this logic, everyone allowed to prepare an EIA…can continue submitting "revised" rejected EIAs indefinitely. We wholeheartedly reject any notion that the national development agenda will be set in this manner." End quote. Chanona said this lack of clarity on the law is why it needs to be revised.
Janelle Chanona, Vice President, Oceana Belize
"There are parts of the law that are silent on very critical issues like what happens when your EIA is rejected? That should be one of the priorities that we focus on for the amendments to say okay what happens in that scenario and then, (2) what constitutes as you say a new EIA? is it reformatting? I put this first in my EIA and I put this one at the bottom, is it fundamental changes? We want to see what they classify as fundamental changes. I believe your reporting thus far has also help to illustrate this that we confirm still to the position that ocean dumping does not and should never make sense for Belize. It is (I'm trying to be kind) a point of fact that offshore dumping and nearshore dumping are both dumping dredge spoils in the Caribbean Sea. You cannot tell me because the water is in front of Belize City versus in front of Turneffe that that is not the Caribbean Sea. You are talking about dumping millions of cubic meters of dredge spoils in the Caribbean Sea and all the science, all the data has shown, all the modelling has shown that wherever you dump that material it will end up on some part of the Belize Barrier System."
So while the conservation groups are clear on the science - it seems the government is kind of wishy washy on the whole cruise tourism affair. Three cruise ports - in addition to the existing one - are on deck for the Belize District - and all of them seem to have been green - lighted. We asked Chanona about that:
Jules Vasquez
"But, something's wrong Janelle, because we know what the blue bond says, we know what the conservation group said and we know what the science says, but yet these projects just keep pushing on and in my mind there is a consistent lack of clarity from the government or lack of leadership from the government in saying here what can happen and hear what can't happen, and that's what I see. What are the conservation group see?"
Janelle Chanona, Vice President, Oceana Belize
"It's also that when you see all of these proposed developments layered on top of other things and in conjunction with protected areas or fishing zones or shipping lanes whatever that is, it's then you fully appreciate that we only have so much to work with, so all the more we need to know what we are prepared to sacrifice and more importantly as you call out in the letter it then calls into question well who exactly is driving the development agenda, because if its constantly having to respond to threats of lawsuits or having to respond to any other fears then we have to assert our sovereign right to determine that well as I said this is what we're going to declare sacred and this is what we're going to sacrifice, so to speak, in terms of making sure that we develop it, but we develop in a strategic way so that we do not compromise what that resource is trying to do for us in terms of goods and services."
And while the letter makes many clear points, we noted that The Nature Conservancy which spearheaded the Blue Bond Initiative and partnered with government on it - did not sign. We asked about that:
Jules Vasquez
"I see a total of 12 signatures, but the group I don't see is the Nature Conservancy. Where is the Nature Conservancy since they are the government partner in this blue bond?"
Janelle Chanona, Vice President, Oceana Belize
"And thank you so much for the question Jules, because it gives me an opportunity to fully apologized not only to the TNC, but to multiple groups that I think would have wanted to sign on to that letter, but the core grouping that you see there, we were working very quickly to get that consensus statement put together and we wanted to get that out yesterday, so please do air my apologies that the other groups that we did not get a chance to reach out to find out if they would be willing to attach their signature and logo to that letter was not done. That is not to say that they would have sign, but certainly I would personally have gotten a chance to participate in that letter."
